Advertisement

Unnecessary Surgery

  • Richard Taylor
Chapter

Abstract

Complications can occur after any surgical procedure but the real surgical tragedies occur when a complication develops after an operation which is unnecessary. And the evidence that considerable unnecessary surgery is performed, especially in a fee-for-service setting, is now overwhelming.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lewis, C., ‘Variations in the incidence of surgery’, N Engl J Med, 281:880, 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nickerson, R. et al, ‘Doctors who perform operations’ N Engl J Med, 295:921, 1976; 295:982, 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore, F. (ed), ‘Contemporary American surgery: hard data at last’, N Engl J Med, 295:953, 1976Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vayda, E., ‘A comparison of surgical rates in Canada and in England and Wales’, N Engl J Med, 289:1224, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunker, J., ‘Surgical manpower: a comparison of operations and surgeons in the United States and England and Wales’, N Engl J Med, 282:135, 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glover, J., ‘The incidence of tonsillectomy in schoolchildren’, Proc Roy Coll Med, 31:1219, 1938Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glover, J., ‘Tonsillectomy in the school medical service: IV, increased incidence in 1948’, Monthly bulletin of the Ministry of Health, London, 9:62, 1950Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearson, R. et al, ‘Hospital caseloads in Liverpool, New England and Uppsala — an international comparison’, Lancet, 11:559, 1968Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haggerty, R. (ed), ‘Sore throats and tonsillectomies’, N Engl J Med, 298:453, 1978Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Child, C., ‘Surgical intervention’, Scientific American, September 1973, p. 59Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lembecke, P., ‘Measuring the quality of medical care through vital statistics based on hospital service areas: comparative study of appendicectomy rates’, Am J Pub Health, 42:276, 1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McEwin, R., ‘Morbidity monitoring in NSW, Australia; incidence of discretionary surgery’, paper presented at the 51st general scientific meeting of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1978Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lugg, M., ‘A comparison of hospital utilisation under three health insurance schemes: Australia, United States, Scotland and England and Wales’, paper presented at the 103rd annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Chicago, 1975Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright, R., ‘Hysterectomy: past, present and future’, Ob & Gyn, 33:560, 1969Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bunker, J., ‘Elective hysterectomy: pro and con’, N Engl J Med, 295:264, 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dyck, F. et al, ‘Effect of surveillance on the number of hysterectomies in the province of Saskatchewan’, N Engl J Med, 296:1326, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaffe, N. ‘Cataract surgery — a modern attitude to a technological explosion’, N Engl J Med, 299:235, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mundthe, E. & Austin, W., ‘Surgical measures for coronary heart disease (part III)’, N Engl J Med, 293:128, 1975Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braunwald, E. (ed), ‘Coronary artery surgery at the crossroads’, N Engl J Med, 297:661, 1977Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Editorial, ‘Saphenous vein by-pass for coronary artery disease’, Br Med J, 2:603, 1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richardson, J., ‘The future of cardiac surgery in Australia: a prediction from a 15-year experience’, Med J Aust, 1:277, 1977Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sautter, R. (letter), J Thor & CV Surg, 68:977, 1974Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bulkley, B. & Ross, R. (ed), ‘Coronary artery by-pass surgery: it works, but why?’, Ann Int Med, 88:835, 1978Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ross, R., ‘Ischaemic heart disease: an overview’, Am J Cardiol, 36:496, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McNeer, J. et al, ‘The nature of treatment selection in coronary artery disease’, Circ, 49:606, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Effler, D. (letter), ‘Revascularisation surgery’, J Thor & CV Surg, 68:977, 1974Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mundthe, E. & Austin, W., ‘Surgical measures for coronary heart disease (part I)’, N Engl J Med, 293:13, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mundthe, E. & Austin, W., ‘Surgical measures for coronary heart disease (part II)’, N Engl J Med, 293:75, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathur, V. et al, ‘Surgical treatment of stable angina pectoris’, N Engl J Med, 292:709, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller, D. et al, ‘Current practice of coronary artery by-pass surgery: results of a national survey’, J Thor & CV Surg, 73:75, 1977Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Editorial, ‘Surgery for coronary artery disease’, Br Med J, 1:597, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathur, V. & Gunn, G., ‘Prospective randomised study of coronary by-pass surgery in stable angina’, Circ, Vols 51, 52, (Supp 1), 1975, p. 133Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aranow, W. & Stenmer, E. et al, ‘Two-year follow-up of angina pectoris: medical or surgical therapy’, Ann Int Med, 282:208, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Editorial, ‘Coronary artery by-pass surgery’, Lancet, 1:841, 1976Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy, M. et al, ‘Treatment of chronic stable angina — a preliminary report of survival data of the randomised Veterans’ Administration Cooperative study’, N Engl J Med, 297:621, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seides, S. et al, ‘Long term anatomic fate of coronary artery by-pass graft and functional status of patients five years after operation’, N Engl J Med, 298:1213, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tecklenberg, P. et al, ‘Changes in survival and symptom relief in a longitudinal study of patients after by-pass surgery’, Circ, vol 52, Supp 1, 1975, p. 98Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barnes, et al, ‘Changes in working status after CABG’, J Am Med Ass, 238:1259, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takaro, T. et al, ‘VA Cooperative study for CABG; sub-group with significant left main lesions’, Circ, vol 54, Supp 3: 11–107, 11–117, 1976Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Richard Taylor 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Taylor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations